And you continue to use "armed force" and "military" interchangeably. As I've already pointed out, militias, terrorists, insurgents and police departments -- none of which are militaries -- are also defined as "armed forces" when they participate in combat.

You also misread the part you bolded. Its stating that a militia and army volunteer corps is to be treated with all the rights and protections of a POW even though they are not part of the professional army.

Exactly: one does not need to be part of the military to still be treated as a combatant.

This is because "armed forces" is not identical to "the military." The military is an armed force, but not all armed forces are part of the military.

Go check your dictionaries because you obviously have not researched the 5 dictionaries I quoted previously in this thread that all included definitions of a military as an armed force.

Go check the definition of armed force as a military:

Wikipedia wrote:

In broad usage, the terms "armed forces" and "military" are often treated synonymously, although in technical usage a distinction is sometimes made in which a country's armed forces may include both its military and other paramilitary forces.

Specific practice was found concerning the incorporation of paramilitary or armed law enforcement agencies, such as police forces, gendarmerie and constabulary, into armed forces.[10] Examples of such paramilitary agencies incorporated into the armed forces of a State include the Special Auxiliary Force attached to Bishop Muzorewa’s United African National Congress in Zimbabwe, which was integrated into the national army after the Bishop became Prime Minister, and India’s Border Security Force in Assam.[11] Examples of armed law enforcement agencies being incorporated into the armed forces include the Philippine Constabulary and Spain’s Guardia Civil.[12]

Incorporation of paramilitary or armed law enforcement agencies into armed forces is usually carried out through a formal act, for example, an act of parliament. In the absence of formal incorporation, the status of such groups will be judged on the facts and in the light of the criteria for defining armed forces. When these units take part in hostilities and fulfil the criteria of armed forces, they are considered combatants.

In practice, "armed forces" and "military" are equivalent only insofar as most countries do not use non-military organizations for combat purposes. Some do, however, and historically this has been a problem for people who wish to avoid possible war crimes by targeting armed organizations that are not actually participating in combat.

Crazy Eddie wrote:

2) The Federation is not known to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions.

Hmmmm, why do you think that is? Is it because the Federation feels that the Geneva Convention unfairly restricts its ability to engage in what could be considered "war crimes"?

More likely, it's because Geneva and its conventions evaporated into a nuclear fireball during World War III and the international laws that succeeded it were written after First Contact. As such, they undoubtedly include some influence from the Vulcans, who similarly do not have a distinct military organization and prefer to keep their armed/unarmed/scientific/military assets under the amorphous umbrella of the Vulcan High Command.